Lord Broughambegged to call the attention of their Lordships to a petition which he held in his hand, and which he considered of great importance, both by reason of the subject, and of the body from which it proceeded. It was a petition from the conference lately held at Edinburgh, and which, having sat for three days, came to a unanimous determination on the subject of the Corn-laws; that was, to petition for their total repeal. That conference, as perhaps was known to their Lordships, was composed of the ministers and elders of the various dissenting congregations throughout Scotland. He understood, that originally an intention was announced from 712 congregations to send delegates to Edinburgh, but instead of that number, there were more—instead of there being a falling-off in the body of delegates represented as was usual, it generally being the case on occasions where meetings were appointed, that more delegates, where such meetings consisted of them, were named as likely to attend, fewer than was stated appeared—but on the present occasion that was not the case, for instead of 712 delegates, 802 ministers, and members of congregations appeared. The conference assembled, as he had said, in Edinburgh; they met day after day successively for three days, and the number of 132 persons who attended varied from 1,400 to 1,600 daily. The debate was carried on with the greatest possible order. In temper, manner, and tone, there was the utmost moderation. He would not trouble their Lordships with reading the petition, important as it was, for the arguments which it urged were the same as had often been urged in that House, and were familiar to their Lordships. The prayer was for a total repeal of the Corn-laws, and when he read their own words from the statement of the conference, published by their authority, it would be seen with what perfect impartiality they treated the plans both of the late Government and of the present, and their Lordships would see, that if any charge could be made against their proceedings, at least it could not be that of faction. They said, that they viewed with equal disapprobation both plans—both the sliding scale of Sir R. Peel, and the fixed duty of Lord John Russell. They passed an equal condemnation upon all projects for taxing the food of the people. They denounced such taxation as being against the principles of religion, contrary to the precepts of morality, and injurious to the best interests of society. He, however, must say, that he differed from the petitioners on the first two grounds on which they put their objections to the Corn-laws, and he agreed with the noble Viscount (Melbourne) that the question is not a religious one at all, or one of morality. He did not think, that morality or religion was peculiarly connected with this question, unless by a very strained construction. But he agreed with the conference in their last statement, that the Corn-laws were adverse to the best interests of society. Although this was a conference only from dissenting congregations, it was not to be inferred, that the congregations of the Established Church did not hold the same opinions. He was aware of no reason why a conference of dissenting ministers should be holden on this question more than on any other political question. He had stated, that he could not concur in the first two points of objection contained in the petition: nevertheless the petitioners had entrusted it to his hands, and had entrusted it to him be believed, after being aware in what respect he differed with them. He had never in any way placed upon exaggerated grounds his advocacy of the repeal of the Corn-laws. He had never held out the pros- 133 pest of such a repeal very much lowering the price of bread and other provisions in this country, That it would lower them to a certain extent he had no doubt; that it would lower them to such an extent as had been stated by many advocates of the repeal, he did not believe. There could not be a greater error than those persons committed, who in their zeal allowed themselves to be led into exaggeration; it was a mode of diminishing, the effect of their own claims, and not of increasing it, to exaggerate the consequences of any abuse. It was like an unskilful person employing a magnifying glass, which might be so used as to diminish, instead of enlarging. There was, however, an undeniable truth in the arguments by which the objections to those laws were supported, and in the proposition, that the best interests of society required their total repeal. In that opinion, as be had already said, he entirely concurred. The noble and learned Lord presented the petition.